If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The current system was set up to not waste member's time if they were happy with the current board members. There is likely no need to hold elections every year, or even every two years for that matter since he board does not make life or finance altering decisions like elected government officials do. This preliminary poll allows the members to make that decision, but the entire board is up for review - excepting Rick as Bruce stated, since he has to have the final say in crucial site related decisions.

Well, at the risk of offending everyone on this forum, I have to say "What a rag-tag system that is!" If you have Rick as the organization's systems manager I'm all for that. But with 4 additional members (each with 2-year terms) it would seem prudent to have 2 come up for re-election each and every year. Those people can express their desire to remain on the board when their term is up. And I'd assume we'd all feel comfortable with that.

I agree that we'd all feel lucky to have the same 4 people willing to serve on the board. But if 2 people come up for re-election each year it gives others the opportunity to toss their hat into the ring. If nobody chooses to do so, fine. But to say that it is a waste of peoples' time to do so, to me seems like a good-old-boy's continuum. You then deserve every bit of criticism that you get.

If folks would follow through with what they said back when relative to Advisory Board and elections we would not be having this discussion.

Why would you not conduct the two year elections the way it was proposed?

I for one have no problem with who is serving now, but to not have an election of board members the way it was proposed is cutting corners and those are some might big corners that are being cut. A few people posting and saying Oh, everything seems OK just does not cut it if you ask me.

Do what you said you would do and have the nominations and election of board members!

I'd really rather not cache, but I am helpless in the grip of my compulsion!

Well, at the risk of offending everyone on this forum, I have to say "What a rag-tag system that is!" If you have Rick as the organization's systems manager I'm all for that. But with 4 additional members (each with 2-year terms) it would seem prudent to have 2 come up for re-election each and every year. Those people can express their desire to remain on the board when their term is up. And I'd assume we'd all feel comfortable with that.

Sheesh! "Rag-tag system"? Sounds like the US House of Representatives - where everyone is up for election every two years. LOL!

But I agree - we should really have an election. While I think we all agree that the current board is OK, a name might come up in nomination that members would prefer to one of the current members.

It's really as simple as that - if you want there to be a vote, there will be. So far, every cycle the members have opted for an election. It may be a wacky setup, but it works.

As Gob-ler stated, if you have issues with the system take that up with the board at a different time and all members can vote on changing it. We can decide to have no board, elections every week, only southern board members, or anything else. But it's not right to change the system during the election period.